I see that the two illustrated for the Maritime Museum differ in barrel length. This one, illustrated here by Danno, has had the barrel shortened - visible clearly in the picture showing the muzzle head on - and that corresponds to the one pictured at

However the pistol listed as AAA2415 has a longer barrel extending beyond the nose cap.

I was surprised to see the cut-off barrel and the bright metal from the slicing but even more surprised to see that one at the museum matched it in that respect. I suppose I have been deprived in my education - I don't believe I had ever seen one of these circumsized.

May I respectfully suggest you store and display these flintlocks with the frizzen forward. The frizzen is the L-shaped cover for the pan that holds the priming powder. The upright portion is struck by the hammer to produce a spark and simultaneously uncover the powder for ignition.

Having the hammer, the part that holds the flint, leaning against the frizzen just doesn't... seem... well.... ahhhh....right. Neither the hammer nor the frizzen will be at rest. By the way, a guaranteed way of irrevocably messing up your nice pistols would be to allow someone to ''dry fire'' them. The frizzen will end up being scored and the recent scoring will be bright shiny metal - quite unlike the patina on your pistols.

The device that holds the flint is properly called the ''hammer'' though some people use the slang term ''cock'' for it. Both terms mean the same.

The L-shaped device is a combination tool - part of it is a pan cover used to keep the ignition powder covered until ready to fire and the second part is the upright portion that is called the ''frizzen'' or, alternatively, the ''steel'' where the spark is generated

May I respectfully suggest that ANYONE wishing to challenge my statement above first do a simple Google search on 'frizzen.' The answer should be evident then.

A word of warning - you may or may not encounter one error I ran into once on the 'net where the individual had it backwards with the steel hitting the flint. But, in fact, the part first set into motion - the hammer/cock - strikes the frizzen/steel that is then itself put into motion. At least that applies for flintlocks, miquelets and snaphaunces - wheellocks are different.

Well, the cock was not originally called the hammer because it didn't hammer anything. The term hammer was not generally used as it is today until the percussion period. And "hammer" really was used for what is now called the frizzen (I don't know why; it didn't hammer anything either); it was also called the "frizzle" and the "steel".

Another term used for a flintlock was "fucile", from the Latin "focus" meaning hearth or fire. That became the French word "fusil" and the English "fuzee", both meaning a flintlock or a gun using a flintlock. Later it came to mean a light musket, especially one carried by officers or NCOs.

In modern terminology, the term "snaphaunce" is used for guns in which the pan cover and the frizzen are separate* and the pan cover usually has to be moved away manually before firing. I have seen some snaphaunces which had an arm that moved the pan cover back when the "hammer" was cocked, a very clever solution to the existing problem, though the combination of the frizzen and pan cover, the true flintlock, was the real answer within the technology of the time.

*Not always so; some of the old books use the term snaphaunce for any flintlock with a "snapping" cock as opposed to a wheellock.

I wrote what I did because you said, ''I agree with BullShoot on moving the hammer forward and lowering the cock. (Just to nitpick on flintlock terminology!)'' It seems as though you confused the terms.

''Hammer'' = ''frizzen'' ?
and flintlock is called a snaphaunce in old books?
Can you provide documentary evidence of either statement?

The terms ''fusil'' and 'fuzee' are older than a flintlock.

Not only in modern terminology but in contemporary terminology, the snaphaunce was called a snaphaunce - and by other names also.

Please don't continue to compound your errors. I get tired of typing. If you would like to continue this ''conversation'', may I suggest we do it by email and not bother the good folks on the forum.

I humbly apologize for daring to contradict someone who is such a fount of all knowledge as you. I realize that it must be a burden for you to condescend to even communicate with us mere mortals, but I am certainly pleased you are willing to stoop so low as to show us the error of our ways.